"Highly Irresponsible": Supreme Court Slam Comments By Dubey, Says It Reflects Intent To Undermine Judiciary's Authority

Despite this, the Court chose not to initiate contempt proceedings against Dubey, stating that such statements could not undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, "In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution."

The Court made the observations while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari. The PIL sought the initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey for his derogatory remarks against the judiciary, as well as the registration of FIRs for hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Dubey's controversial remarks followed the Supreme Court's intervention in petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He accused CJI Sanjiv Khanna of being "responsible for all the civil wars happening in India" and claimed that the Supreme Court was "inciting religious wars in the country."

The Court observed, "We have examined the contents of the assertions made by respondent no. 4, which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice. The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening 2 For short, “the Act”. 2 in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible."

While condemning the comments, the Court emphasized that they did not prima facie attract the exemptions under the Contempt of Courts Act. It also clarified that there is no "civil war in India," and noted that the remarks showed ignorance regarding the constitutional duties and obligations of the judiciary.

Despite the severity of the remarks, the Court refrained from taking any direct action, emphasizing that "Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements." The Court highlighted its belief that the credibility of the judiciary could not be shaken by such absurd statements, although it acknowledged the deliberate attempt to undermine public trust.

The Court also reiterated that not every instance of contemptuous speech warranted punishment. "Judges are judicious, their valour non-violent, and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values," it said.

The Court emphasized that judicial decisions should be protected by values such as free press, fair trial, and community confidence, not by resorting to contempt proceedings. "Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt. Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned," it said.

Conclusively, while declining to entertain the petition, the Court made it clear that hate speech will not be tolerated. It emphasized that hate speech causes loss of dignity, contributes to societal disharmony, and erodes the open-mindedness necessary for a multicultural society.

The Bench held, "While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, we make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand. Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, 5 and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality."

"Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offense and must be dealt with accordingly," the Court added.

It is to be noted that on May 5, the Bench had refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey for allegedly making scandalous and derogatory remarks against Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and the Apex Court.